Hypocritical Contraception?

[estesbob]

The logic is any attempt to change the natural action of relations is disallowed. So the Church rules that pills, condoms, etc, etc are things brought in to change the natural action or course of the actions. NFP may itself be equivalent if performed without proper reason. The marital relation should not be thought of as pleasure but bonding, the Church uses the word “unitive” meaning the uniting of the husband and wife. This teaching can be difficult and often takes some time to understand.

Proabably the most difficual teaching I had to deal with in my lifetime as a Catholic.

 

[KCT]

God bless you for wanting to work through this while you’re young! It may save your heartache later.

 

[rlg94086]

Proabably the most difficual teaching I had to deal with in my lifetime as a Catholic.

I agree. My wife and I used ABC up until we decided to have our third child. We then accepted Church teaching, after much study and debate. During my wife’s fourth pregnancy, she had gestational diabetes and very high blood pressure. She is worried about what another pregnancy might be like for her, even though I would love to have more kids. We use NFP. We know that if she were to get pregnant, there would not be any hesitation in what to do.

Some friends of ours in the parish have just decided to start using NFP after their 10th child. Is there someone who would like to call them up and tell them they are sinning by using NFP?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’ll try to follow you

Thanks for all of your replies and your warm welcome … I’m not really asking that. I think JMBNH has hit on what I speak of the best. [ref:I do think NFP use has got away from why it was originally allowed.]

One issue here is the Church teaches celibacy as the standard, with relations as a gift to only the married

…This is why I would disagree with StCsDavid’s statement [ref: NFP is a completely selfless act of the couple giving of themselves in cooperation, and acceptance of God’s will.] While in theory this may be true, this is not the case in practice. Many people who use NFP deliberately look at when they won’t become pregnant and use that as a time for sex, while they abstain during times in which they could become pregnant. To me, this seems like it is very obvious contraception. God cannot allow an egg to be fertilized if there is no egg present. The Church knows of this “loop whole” if you will, and I think it turns a blind eye to it. To go on what LittleDeb said earlier, there is just as much of a barrier to the production of life and to each other in this case as in the cases of over-the-counter contraception.

Several things here 1) The Church interchanges the terms “contraception” and artifical contraception. This can be a problem as many doctors/scientist will say NFP is contraception they are using the secular definition while the Church does not use that definition. 2) PPIV was clear in his teaching on this issue concern the fact fertility is not consistent. He wrote that this is a design by God to control pregnancy. Thus we are allowed to use these infertile periods for unitive love while knowing procreation is extremely unlikely. In summary the Church implies the barrier of timing is designed in by God while the other methods are altering God’s design.

From what I’ve read, many married couples who practice NFP deliberately use it as the very opposite to what you have all pointed out - they use it strictly as some kind of “Catholic contraception.” Their purpose has nothing to do with sharing themselves or uniting with their spouses. It’s to have sex, but sex that is somehow more “acceptable.” Thus, I don’t see why something like NFP is allowed when it’s intentions are very obvious, whereas something like a non-abortifacient condom is not. I feel like they are essentially the same thing. If we disallow one, we should disallow both, and if we allow one, we should allow both, no?

Yes and no, the teaching is any marriage designed to totally avoid procreation is not a real marriage, however real marriages can control births by using infertile periods to reduce and space births. So this brings the question how many births are needed or required? And the teaching is 1) all marriages must have at least one act of relations, 2) all acts of relations must be performed as designed, 3)When needs arise to delay future births even indefinitely this may be done through either total abstinence or timing of abstinence.

FYI- the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. -PPIV (1968)http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

hope that helps

 

[Green_Tea]

In summary the Church implies the barrier of timing is designed in by God while the other methods are altering God’s design.

Why is it a problem to “alter God’s design”? We wear tennis shoes, repair broken limbs, take allergy medication, wear sunglasses, and do millions of other things that “alter God’s design” in this sense, but do not appear problematic.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Why is it a problem to “alter God’s design”? We wear tennis shoes, repair broken limbs, take allergy medication, wear sunglasses, and do millions of other things that “alter God’s design” in this sense, but do not appear problematic.

You mention morally neutral issues while the OP mentioned a very different issue. You may note though many individuals feel artificial birth control is morally neutral however that is not what the Church teaches. PPIV referenced loss of self discipline, self control, personal responsibility, degradation of women both physical and emotional , and loss of family responsibility as some reasons morals are an issue in contraception.

 

[homeloan]

Why is it a problem to “alter God’s design”? We wear tennis shoes, repair broken limbs, take allergy medication, wear sunglasses, and do millions of other things that “alter God’s design” in this sense, but do not appear problematic.

Be careful Green Tea, you’re treading on sacred ground with these guys…

PS - sorry Mets for mistaking you as a girl. Reminds me of an incident many years ago. Several of us guys were in this club down in Corpus Christi. This was during the oil field boom when the movie, Urban Cowboy, came out with John Travolta and Debra Winger. So these roughnecks are sitting at a table drinking beer and one of them has long, long hair. My buddy thought the long-haired dude was a lady. So he goes over and asks him to dance. Long-haired dude looked up at him like he was crazy. My buddy said the following 7 words, which will live with me till I die; "Sorry, I thought you was a girl.’

I still can’t believe we got out of there alive… I think it was because I had just converted to RC and I didn’t challenge everyone like I do now…

 

[emilyd428]

Although i believe that NFP can be misused. NFP does not require a grave reason to be practiced. And there’s no requirement for using it. It’s just abstinence. There is nothing in the Catholic Church or in the Lord’s teaching that discourages periods of abstinence. NFP just keeps track of a woman’s cycle. You’re keeping track and picking the days to and not to abstain. Abstinence is not a form of contraception. Therefore, NFP, unless it is used to completely eliminate children from the marriage, can not be used in a contraceptive way.

 

[Green_Tea]

Texas Roofer:

You mention morally neutral issues while the OP mentioned a very different issue. You may note though many individuals feel artificial birth control is morally neutral however that is not what the Church teaches. PPIV referenced loss of self discipline, self control, personal responsibility, degradation of women both physical and emotional , and loss of family responsibility as some reasons morals are an issue in contraception.

First, I am not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong. I am very new to Catholicism and am trying to understand.

That said, allow me to explain the significance of my question. You gave a summary reason why certain forms of preventing pregnancy are acceptable while others are not: the one’s which involve “altering God’s design” are wrong. I interpreted this to mean that “altering God’s design” is itself wrong (that is the basic logic of your statement, unless I am missing something?). This logic did not seem to hold up, though, because there are many cases in which “altering God’s design” is perfectly fine. So where does that leave us?

Texas Roofer: “Technique X is wrong because it alters God’s design.”
Green Tea: “But altering God’s design is not always wrong.”
Texas Roofer: “Altering God’s design in this way is wrong because it is Technique X.”

That cannot be what you mean, right? So I am trying to understand: what did you mean?

Thank you for your help!

 

[LittleDeb]

First, I am not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong. I am very new to Catholicism and am trying to understand.

That said, allow me to explain the significance of my question. You gave a summary reason why certain forms of preventing pregnancy are acceptable while others are not: the one’s which involve “altering God’s design” are wrong. I interpreted this to mean that “altering God’s design” is itself wrong (that is the basic logic of your statement, unless I am missing something?). This logic did not seem to hold up, though, because there are many cases in which “altering God’s design” is perfectly fine. So where does that leave us?

Texas Roofer: “Technique X is wrong because it alters God’s design.”
Green Tea: “But altering God’s design is not always wrong.”
Texas Roofer: “Altering God’s design in this way is wrong because it is Technique X.”

That cannot be what you mean, right? So I am trying to understand: what did you mean?

Thank you for your help!

I hope I can offer help here even though the post is not directed towards me. I think the question that needs to be asked is not about ‘altering’ God’s design, but instead in attempting to ‘thwart’ God’s design.

When I posted my many questions I had a feeling the OP was going in the direction of “Well, since condoms do the same thing isn’t NFP just contraception?” tact. The questions I ask in my post apply to exactly that. Is the design fertile/infertile? Are the signs of fertility fairly clear? Is it possible for even the most basic human to understand these signs? Are we as humans able to show self control? Are we as humans called to self control? (As another poster pointed out in a myth about Catholicism, ‘does the design require us to have as many babies as we can, as close together as we can?’)

What is the design? The benign scenarios you posted did nothing to *thwart * the design. They aid, they heal, they protect from damage. Tennis shoes pad our feet, they don’t cut them off to put “better” appendages on. Healing limbs and taking allergy medicine heals something that is broken. As I often say, “Fertility is not a disease. I do not need a pill.” Protecting one’s eyes from harmful rays or from pain of bright light keep the design working as it should. Fertility, in and of itself, is not harmful. We don’t need protection from it, as I pointed out.

What does God ask of us? He asks us to do things HIS way. So the question we ask for marriage is what is the design? The design is fertile/infertile. The design is one man one woman make babies. The design is a mere glimpse of the marriage of Christ and His bride, the Church. One bride, and one fruitful marriage.

NFP is charting information and acting, or not acting on that information. It is not an alternative to contraception. It is an alternative to total abstinence.

Does that help?

 

[mlchance]

Why is it a problem to “alter God’s design”? We wear tennis shoes, repair broken limbs, take allergy medication, wear sunglasses, and do millions of other things that “alter God’s design” in this sense, but do not appear problematic.

Not a single thing you mention above alters God’s design. Do tennis shoes make your feet into not-feet, or do sunglasses make your eyes into not-eyes? How is a broken limb God’s design? The normal condition of limbs is not-broken. Similarly with allergy medication.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Seatuck]

Although i believe that NFP can be misused. NFP does not require a grave reason to be practiced. And there’s no requirement for using it. It’s just abstinence. There is nothing in the Catholic Church or in the Lord’s teaching that discourages periods of abstinence. NFP just keeps track of a woman’s cycle. You’re keeping track and picking the days to and not to abstain. Abstinence is not a form of contraception. Therefore, NFP, unless it is used to completely eliminate children from the marriage, can not be used in a contraceptive way.

A married couple must have serious reasons to postpone a child at any given time in a marriage.Spouses united in marriage are expected to be generous with the transmission of life in which they collaborate with God as part of thier marital obligations.

NFP can also be used to concieve a child. We shouldn’t forget that role it might play in conjugal relations.

 

[homeloan]

IWhat does God ask of us? He asks us to do things HIS way. So the question we ask for marriage is what is the design? The design is fertile/infertile. The design is one man one woman make babies. The design is a mere glimpse of the marriage of Christ and His bride, the Church. One bride, and one fruitful marriage.

Sometimes, God’s way is a little bazaar, e.g., Gen 18;16-33 & Gen 9 (whole chapter). God decided to murder all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their homosexuality, even after Abraham pleaded mightily to spare them. Abraham specifically prayed that God spare the innocent (presumably, women & children). The exhaustive pleadings of course were in vain. So God rained down sulphurous fire on the city, murdering the homo’s, women and children. He was so PO’d, he even murdered Lot’s wife, who committed the unpardonable sin. While escaping, she turned to look. But at least the world benefitted from an extra measure of salt.

But, after Lot & his two daughters were relocated and safe, in a cave in Zoar, his daughters got him got drunk. They were frustrated (because there were no men in Zoar), so they “lay” with their father, the oldest one 1st, then, the next day, they got him drunk again and the younger daughter lay with him.

Of course, we’re told Lot was unaware of this… Yeah, I’ll bet…

Bottom line, the older one bore Moab, who became the ancestor of all the Moabites. The younger one bore Ammon, who became the ancestor of all the Ammonites.

QUESTION: Would it have been better if Lot would have used NFP, thus eliminating all of the Moabites and Ammonites forever and ever, Amen?

MORAL OF THE STORY: Incest is OK because it allows one man and one woman (well, actually two women, even though they were his daughters) to make babies.

NOW THE REST OF THE STORY: Thank God Lot and his daughters didn’t abide by NFP. Otherwise, the world would have missed out on the millions of Moabites & Ammonites, which I think are the tribes Yassar Arafat came from…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi Green Tea

First, I am not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong. I am very new to Catholicism and am trying to understand.

I was not offended by the post, and hope you were not offended by my post. I intended no offense

That said, allow me to explain the significance of my question. You gave a summary reason why certain forms of preventing pregnancy are acceptable while others are not: the one’s which involve “altering God’s design” are wrong. I interpreted this to mean that “altering God’s design” is itself wrong (that is the basic logic of your statement, unless I am missing something?). This logic did not seem to hold up, though, because there are many cases in which “altering God’s design” is perfectly fine. So where does that leave us?

The “altering God’s design” is a common Church standard of evaluation it will be seen over and over as in vitro fertilization, cloning, stem cell research, non-fertile couples, etc.

Texas Roofer: “Technique X is wrong because it alters God’s design.”
Green Tea: “But altering God’s design is not always wrong.”
Texas Roofer: “Altering God’s design in this way is wrong because it is Technique X.”

That cannot be what you mean, right? So I am trying to understand: what did you mean?

Thank you for your help!

I am “echoing” = “catechism” the decision is made by the Magisterium/Pope. The birth control (allowed) verses artificial contraception (not allowed) is a little complex. And “God’s design” is not the only factor but a hurdle which must be cleared. For example therapeutic sterilization is allowed while non therapeutic sterilization is disallowed. You may alter your body (as designed by God) if you have morally neutral issues or lesser evil conditions. You may not alter for immoral objectives as birth control, or egg/sperm donation because the Church has ruled Catholics are restricted to natural processes.

Please pursue any concerns you have, as this is not an easy, or quickly understood subject.

 

[kalt]

You ask very good questions.

The first notion that we need to dispell is the notion that the church teaches that birth control is immoral. It does not. The Church teaches that for just reasons we can postone and/or space children.

The Church teaches contraception is an immoral *means *of birth control. Abstaining from sexual relations is not, nor ever has been.

NFP is periodic abstinence. What NFP says is “we are not ready to have a child at this time so we will refrain from sexual relations.” We serve God and respect the way he created intercourse.

What contraception says is “we are not ready to have a child right now so we will engage in the act and pervert it by using a contraceptive.” We do not serve God and respect the way in which he created the marital act, the act serves US.

Each act of intercourse must be unitive and procreative, objectively. This means any time you engage in intercourse it cannot be an altered act of intercourse.

The Church doesn’t require us to have relations every day, or with any specific frequency, or on any specific day. But, when we do choose to come together in the marital embrace we cannot alter the act.

I’m with the OP on this one. NFP is playing with nature, just as using withdrawal is. In the one case you stop the sex act at its climax. In the other, you stop the sex act before it starts. Both are acts of contraception.

I understand that you don’t have to have sex. It’s not required. But if you’re going to honestly say that you’re not having sex because you’re not ready for children, then don’t have sex. Plotting it all out so you can have sex and not get pregnant is hardly the “spacing” you mention. It’s birth control.

Plotting and coniving to have sex only when you know you won’t get pregnant is no more “natural” than withdrawal. Though I know that it (NFP) is more effective as a birth control method.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m with the OP on this one. NFP is playing with nature, just as using withdrawal is. In the one case you stop the sex act at its climax. In the other, you stop the sex act before it starts. Both are acts of contraception.

I understand that you don’t have to have sex. It’s not required. But if you’re going to honestly say that you’re not having sex because you’re not ready for children, then don’t have sex. Plotting it all out so you can have sex and not get pregnant is hardly the “spacing” you mention. It’s birth control.

Plotting and coniving to have sex only when you know you won’t get pregnant is no more “natural” than withdrawal. Though I know that it (NFP) is more effective as a birth control method.

Abstinence is not the same as withdrawal…that is just silly. Withdrawal is sexual relations with an attempt to frustrate the procreative nature of the act. Abstinence doesn’t involve a sexual act.

Historically, the only way a Catholic family could stop having children during fertility would have been to stop having sex. This has never been a sin; otherwise, there would have been some proclamation from the Church that you must have sex every day - yes, I know, some people would be all for that.

The only difference now is that we have a better understanding of the body’s cycles.

CCC:

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

2370 ***Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:***159
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

Again, a Catholic may choose not to use NFP to space and/or limit their children (for just reasons). I note that this is rarely the argument people are putting forward. Rather, they want to make NFP a moral equivalence with artificial contraception, so they can use artificial contraception.

As someone else explained, it is not NFP that is illicit, but rather the attitude of some Catholics toward NFP. If someone is limiting their births out of selfishness (because they want more things…a better lifestyle), then that is indeed a sin. The Catechism is clear on that.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m with the OP on this one. NFP is playing with nature, just as using withdrawal is. In the one case you stop the sex act at its climax. In the other, you stop the sex act before it starts. Both are acts of contraception.

I understand that you don’t have to have sex. It’s not required. But if you’re going to honestly say that you’re not having sex because you’re not ready for children, then don’t have sex. Plotting it all out so you can have sex and not get pregnant is hardly the “spacing” you mention. It’s birth control.

Plotting and coniving to have sex only when you know you won’t get pregnant is no more “natural” than withdrawal. Though I know that it (NFP) is more effective as a birth control method.

I think the “natural” refers to the naturally occurring infertile period. If you missed it earlier the Church uses the word “contraception” in a different capacity than the secular definition. PPIV was clear the couple may avoid children (not all the time). Additionally we all accept this method is birth control. Does that help?

If the objective is zero procreation the marriage is invalid and thus the actions are immoral. If the objective is birth control to include both designed birth of children, and periods void of birth for just reasons then timing relations is acceptable. However if the same objective is performed through artificial methods then the action is immoral. Notice in the first and last case the objective is relations, however in the allowed method marriage and family are central objectives with relations being considerly less important.
It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.* - PPIV (1968)

 

[Scottgun]

The NFP=ABC is the result of consequentialist thinking. One more chance to break out the old cheat sheet:

You can set your watch to it. One says something like, “Natural Familiy Planning (NFP) doesn’t work.”. The NFP defender replies that it is every bit as effective as artificial birth control (ABC). On cue, the naysayer goes, “Aha! Then they are the same thing!” Now the defender has the unenviable task of explaining moral reasoning like explaining vector calculus to a gorilla. I got so tired of rehashing it that I typed up this Moral Evaluations 101 cheat-sheet a few years ago and just pasted it when the issue came up. It probably needs serious tweaking, but here it is. (I’m lifting and paraphrasing most of this from CCC 1749-1761):

The goodness or badness of an act must be evaluated according to 3 criteria:

1. The objective–this is the rightness or wrongness (or indifference) of an act in and of itself. (Examples: murder is objectively bad, almsgiving is objectively good.)
2. The subjective–this is the intent of the one doing the act (called the agent). Note that a good intention does not make an objectively evil act good, and that an evil intent can render a good act evil. (Such as giving alms in order to trick people into thinking you are pious).
3. The relative–this is all the surrounding circumstances and the actual result of the act or the end achieved. These do not change the objective goodness or badness of the act in and of themselves.

Plugging the above in it becomes abundantly clear that NFP is NOT morally equivalent to ABC and that the Church’s teaching is entirely consistent.

By the way, the techniques of NFP are not really an act, it’s information gathering. Having marital relations is the act. So:

1. The objective–Abstaining from sex is in and of itself morally indifferent. Putting barriers between couples in the marital act or rendering the womb hostile to life with chemicals is objectively wrong. NFP passes gate #1. ABC does not, so it goes down as morally unacceptable up front. NFP passes, but is not quite out of the woods yet 'till we get to:
2. The subjective–as stated above, good intentions do not make objectively evil acts good. Here we can see that with an NFP-practicing couple, there is a possibility of evil intent which would render abstinence evil, but obviously it is hard for outsiders to judge others, because ta-da! it is subjective. (We can have a giant debate about what constitutes bad intent, but here I’m just dismantling the NFP=ABC canard.) Big red note: The intention to not have children in a particular fertile cycle by itself is not immoral.
3. The relative–and here is the cause of much the trouble regarding this teaching. We are living in the age of a widespread blindness that denies the existence of #1 (objective right and wrongs), that everything is #2 and #3, and says the ends justify the means (consequentialism). So people look at the ends: ABC=no pregnancy, NFP=no pregnancy, and wrongly conclude they are morally equivalent. T’ain’t so.

So while one can lodge all kinds of complaints against the Church’s teaching on contraception, logical inconsistency or “distinction without a difference” with ABC should not be among them.

 

[Green_Tea]

Thank you everyone for your help. Also I read an article online last night and I am pretty close to convinced, at least for the moment.

Scottgun:

1. The objective–Abstaining from sex is in and of itself morally indifferent. Putting barriers between couples in the marital act or rendering the womb hostile to life with chemicals is objectively wrong. NFP passes gate #1. ABC does not, so it goes down as morally unacceptable up front. NFP passes

If I wear a condom or “pull out” (this is not to say that either of these are necessarily effective, of course), I see how I am putting a “barrier” between myself and my wife* insofar as we are not, at that particular moment, as completely “one flesh” as we could be. But abstaining that particular night functions in the same way, does it not? In fact, that would seem more of a barrier to our potential for physical bonding.

(In your terms: if abstaining within marriage is in and of itself morally indifferent, then I do not see how other forms of birth control within marriage are in and of themselves morally different. Inversely, if other forms of birth control are in and of themselves immoral, then it would seem to me that abstaining within marriage would be in and of itself immoral.)

*(Note: I am not married. This is hypothetical.)

 

[kalt]

" One says something like, “Natural Familiy Planning (NFP) doesn’t work.”. The NFP defender replies that it is every bit as effective as artificial birth control (ABC). On cue, the naysayer goes, “Aha! Then they are the same thing!” "

They are the same thing when the goal is the same – to be able to have sex and not have children.

The difference is that w/ ABC, the couple can have sex a few more days a month than they could with NFP.

If those few days make NFP holy, well…

The fact is that NFP and ABC are used so that the couple can have sex without getting pregnant. With NFP and ABC, the goal is identical and is exactly what the CC teaches against–contraception. People want to call the means (NFP) holy, because the sex act itself isn’t interupted or some device isn’t used. IMO, this is just a mind game. It’s all the same thing. No sex act engaged in while calculatiing and timing via NFP is truly open to procreation. It’s just a game.